Faith in Science: Examining Our Beliefs - PF 2.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the role of faith in science, exploring whether faith is necessary or appropriate within scientific inquiry. Participants examine the definitions of faith and its implications for scientific practice, touching on philosophical aspects, societal perceptions, and the nature of scientific knowledge.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that faith has no place in science, emphasizing that science relies on verification and rational deduction rather than belief without reason.
  • Others suggest that faith may be involved in the initial stages of the scientific method, particularly in philosophical considerations, but should not influence experimental results.
  • One viewpoint posits that many people exercise faith in science without understanding the underlying principles, relying on the expertise of scientists and established practices.
  • Several participants discuss the idea that faith can be interpreted as confidence in the consistency of natural laws, which scientists rely on to make predictions.
  • There is a contention that faith in science may be necessary when considering the limits of current knowledge and the potential for theories to be proven wrong as new data emerges.
  • Some participants express that faith can be seen as a foundational belief in the existence and understandability of the universe, which underpins scientific exploration.
  • Disagreement arises regarding whether faith in science equates to blind belief or if it can be understood as a rational confidence based on past successes.
  • One participant argues that the assumption of natural laws being false is a more accurate representation of scientific practice than having faith in existing theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the role of faith in science. Multiple competing views are presented, with some advocating for a strict separation of faith and science, while others see a nuanced relationship between the two concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying definitions of faith, leading to different interpretations of its relevance to scientific inquiry. The discussion reflects a range of philosophical perspectives and societal attitudes towards science and belief.

  • #31
In my opinion, faith in science is based on the postulates collected from experiments(although such experiments don't neccesarily have to be done in the physical world: i.e, metaphysics).


Originally posted by Mentat
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demostration of realities, though not beheld" (Hebrews 11:1).


I agree with that scripture. But when you relate it to "faith in science", I don't believe "though not beheld" applies to all aspects of science, but metaphysical aspects of it. Or have I interpreted it wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
no, I don't have any 'faith' in science. There's no point to it. After all, science in man's creation and science will die along with mankind.
 
  • #33
true, psyber freek. but, the context of "faith in science" refers to now, while humans still exist.
 
  • #34
i think humanity continues to have "faith in science" (not the same perspective as i intentionally meant) because it is the only "truth" we can "rely" on for now...
 
  • #35
Edit: Humanity relies on the results of science.
The definition of science is...
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

~from www.dictionary.com

So, does humanity rely on "the observation indentification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena"? I think not, but the results of it. But then, in the end, these results are functions of science.
 
  • #36
Obviously, we need rely on science to benefit ourselves, but we can't believe completely in science because that's not the sole reality. For example, consciousness exists but it can't be scientifically observed.
 
  • #37
excellent point psyber freak...we know it's there, but can't physically sense it with our known 5 senses...
 
  • #38
Currently, we can't "observe" it. There's been a fairly new discovery of biophotons. They're supposed to unite QM with consciousness, so to speak. Anyhow, biophotons could be the possible key to our understanding of consciousness, which could very well be a series of EM/electric currents. This will all be resolved through further study of biophotons.
 
  • #39
Alright, I'm glad that some of you are remembering the difference between faith in the potential of scientific discovery, and faith in the current level scientific knowledge.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
11K